Writ petition: Top court admits plea challenging JCP rules
AK Dogar argues judges should be selected by competitive exams
Dogar urged that Article 175A of the Constitution should not be read in isolation. It should be interpreted together with articles 2A, 9, 18 and 25. PHOTO: INP
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court, while accepting a writ petition challenging some sections of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) Rules-2010, on Monday issued notices to the attorney general of Pakistan and secretaries to the ministry of law and justice and the JCP.
A two-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, issued the notices after hearing an appeal of the Lawyers Foundation for Justice against the rejection of its plea against rule 3 of the Rules by the Lahore High Court. Advocate A K Dogar represented the foundation. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed is the other member of the bench.
The petitioner contended that rule 3 of the Rules allowing ‘nomination’ to the bench from amongst lawyers by chief justices of high courts was violation of articles 2-A, 9, 18, and 25 of the constitution.
As per rule 3, the chief justice of Pakistan would commence nominations in the commission for the appointment against each anticipated or actual vacancy of a judge in the Supreme Court or the chief justice of the Federal Shariat Court or the chief justice of a high court and nomination for appointment of a judge in a high court will be done by the chief justice of the respective high court, and it will be forwarded to the chief justice of Pakistan.
Dogar, while arguing before the bench, said judges to the higher judiciary should be appointed through competitive examinations. “Why are thousands of lawyers, who are otherwise qualified and meet the requirements under Article 193(2)(a) of the Constitution, not given an opportunity to become judges?”
Dogar urged that Article 175A of the Constitution should not be read in isolation. It should be interpreted together with articles 2A, 9, 18 and 25.
He said arbitrary nominations without any system of selection are not only illegal but also unethical and un-Islamic. The petitioner while quoting an example of the United Kingdom submitted that posts of judges of the UK and Wales high courts were “advertised” widely not only in the national press but also in the legal publications and online so as to ensure provision of a fair chance to all through requisite tests and interviews.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 12th, 2016.
The Supreme Court, while accepting a writ petition challenging some sections of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) Rules-2010, on Monday issued notices to the attorney general of Pakistan and secretaries to the ministry of law and justice and the JCP.
A two-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, issued the notices after hearing an appeal of the Lawyers Foundation for Justice against the rejection of its plea against rule 3 of the Rules by the Lahore High Court. Advocate A K Dogar represented the foundation. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed is the other member of the bench.
The petitioner contended that rule 3 of the Rules allowing ‘nomination’ to the bench from amongst lawyers by chief justices of high courts was violation of articles 2-A, 9, 18, and 25 of the constitution.
As per rule 3, the chief justice of Pakistan would commence nominations in the commission for the appointment against each anticipated or actual vacancy of a judge in the Supreme Court or the chief justice of the Federal Shariat Court or the chief justice of a high court and nomination for appointment of a judge in a high court will be done by the chief justice of the respective high court, and it will be forwarded to the chief justice of Pakistan.
Dogar, while arguing before the bench, said judges to the higher judiciary should be appointed through competitive examinations. “Why are thousands of lawyers, who are otherwise qualified and meet the requirements under Article 193(2)(a) of the Constitution, not given an opportunity to become judges?”
Dogar urged that Article 175A of the Constitution should not be read in isolation. It should be interpreted together with articles 2A, 9, 18 and 25.
He said arbitrary nominations without any system of selection are not only illegal but also unethical and un-Islamic. The petitioner while quoting an example of the United Kingdom submitted that posts of judges of the UK and Wales high courts were “advertised” widely not only in the national press but also in the legal publications and online so as to ensure provision of a fair chance to all through requisite tests and interviews.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 12th, 2016.